Donald Berwick: The Radical Technocrat Pushing Single-Payer
Berwick is the radical Technocrat that Democrats are turning to for health care makeover. He “believes passionately in a society ruled by a technocratic elite” where patients should be managed like a herd of animals.
Don’t mistakenly assume that the Technocrat mind is limited to one political party or the other. Technocracy cuts through all political parties and plans on the elimination of them all when it gains total control. ⁃ TN Editor
Donald Berwick is one of the dangerous men Democrats are using to try to make single-payer health care a reality in the United States.
If anyone had doubts about the radical nature of Democrats’ health care agenda, they needn’t look further than the second name on the witness list for this Wednesday’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on single-payer health care: Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
If that name sounds familiar, it should. In summer 2010, right after Obamacare’s passage, President Obama gave Berwick a controversial recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Democrats refused to consider Berwick’s nomination despite controlling 59 votes in the Senate at the time, and he had to resign as CMS administrator at the end of his recess appointment in late 2011.
Berwick’s History of Radical Writings
Even a cursory review of Berwick’s writings explains why Obama’s only option was to push him through with a recess appointment, and why Democrats refused to give Berwick so much as a nomination hearing. As someone who read just about everything he wrote until his nomination—thousands of pages of journal articles, books, and speeches—I know the radical nature of Berwick’s thinking all too well. He believes passionately in a society ruled by a technocratic elite, thinking that a core group of government planners can run the country’s health care system better than individual doctors and patients.
Here is what this doctor believes in, in his own words:
Socialized Medicine: “Cynics beware: I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”
Control by Elites: “I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”
Wealth Redistribution: “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must—must—redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.”
Shutting Medical Facilities: “Reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care and consolidate high-technology services into regional and community-wide centers … Most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaging in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, organ transplantation, tertiary cancer care, high-level trauma care, and high-technology imaging.”
End of Life Care: “Most people who have serious pain do not need advanced methods; they just need the morphine and counseling that have been available for centuries.”
Cost-Effectiveness Rationing of Care: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Doctors Putting “The System” over their Patients: “Doctors and other clinicians should be advocates for patients or the populations they service but should refrain from manipulating the system to obtain benefits for them to the substantial disadvantage of others.”
Standardized “Cookbook Medicine”: “I would place a commitment to excellence—standardization to the best-known method—above clinician autonomy as a rule for care.”
For those who want a fuller picture of Berwick’s views, in 2010-11 I compiled a nearly 30-page dossier featuring excerpts of his beliefs, based on my comprehensive review of his prior writings and speeches. That document is now available online here, and below.
Google Being Sued Over Illegally Obtained Health Records
University of Chicago Medical Center conspired to sell sensitive health records of patients to Google, violating HIPPA and privacy laws. The lawsuit notes, this is “likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history.”
Google has been sucking up medical records for several years. In 2016, New Scientistdiscovered that Google secured access to 1.6 million patient records from the UK’s National Health Service. ⁃ TN Editor
A former University of Chicago medical patient filed a class-action lawsuit against the University of Chicago and Google, claiming that the University of Chicago Medical Center is giving private patient information to the tech giant without patients’ consent.
About two years ago, the university medical center partnered with Google with the hope of identifying patterns in patient health records to help predict future medical issues.
Now, former patient Matt Dinerstein is filing a lawsuit on behalf of the medical center’s patients, alleging that the university violated privacy laws by sharing sensitive health records with Google from 2009 to 2016, aiding Google’s goal of creating a digital health record system, according to the Chicago Maroon.
The suit alleges that the university deceived its patients by telling them that their medical records would be protected, but ultimately violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law that ensures privacy and security for personal medical data. It also claims that UChicago violated state laws in Illinois that makes it illegal for companies to participate in dishonest client practices.
The complaint details Google’s alleged two-part plan: obtain the Electronic Health Record (EHR) of almost every patient at the UChicago Medical Center, then use the information to create its own lucrative commercial EHR system.
“While tech giants have dominated the news over the last few years for repeatedly violating consumers’ privacy, Google managed to fly under the radar as it pulled off what is likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history,” the complaint stated. “The compromised personal information is not just run-of-the-mill like credit card numbers, usernames and passwords, or even social security numbers, which nowadays seem to be the subject of daily hacks.”
“Rather, the personal medical information obtained by Google is the most sensitive and intimate information in an individual’s life, and its unauthorized disclosure is far more damaging to an individual’s privacy.”
Dinerstein’s lawsuit claims that EHRs contain patient information ranging from height and weight to diseases they carry such as AIDS or diabetes and medical procedures they have undergone.
The medical records include the demographics of patients, along with their diagnoses, prescribed medicine, and past procedures, the lawsuit alleges. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA protects patients’ “individually identifiable health information,” which includes “demographic data, that relates to…the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual.”
“The disclosure of EHRs here is even more egregious because the University promised in its patient admission forms that it would not disclose patients’ records to third parties, like Google, for commercial purposes,” the lawsuit continued. “Nevertheless, the University did not notify its patients, let alone obtain their express consent, before turning over their confidential medical records to Google for its own commercial gain.”
Google detailed its use of EHRs, including ones obtained from the University of Chicago, in a 2018 research paper. The Big Tech company claimed that there are no privacy concerns because the records did not include the identities of patients.
Although Google claims to lack the personal identity associated with each set of information, the complaint calls this a “false sense of security” for patients, since Google’s comprehensive data-mining abilities, along with the time and date of each treatment and notes from medical providers that the records allegedly contained, allow them to identify each individual.
“While this type of public misinformation campaign may be expected from a tech company that has been known to play fast and loose with the information of its customers, the fact that a prominent institution like The University of Chicago would act in such a way is truly stunning,” the complaint said.
According to the lawsuit, Google has been interested in using algorithms to predict looming health issues. To gain the necessary information, Google first developed a personal health information storage platform that it later discontinued because few consumers participated. The company then bought DeepMind, a startup that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to study health care, reported the Chicago Tribune.
Technocrat Scientists Look To Create Human-Monkey Chimeras
Technocrats who believe that humans are just animals like every other animal, see no problem in crossing species by genetic modification. Transhumans go one step further by claiming to control evolution, creating Humans 2.0. ⁃ TN Editor
The monkeys in Douglas Munoz’s Kingston lab look like other monkeys.
They socialize and move around and eat and drink in the same way. They don’t fall over or stagger around. In fact, the only thing separating the macaques from their unaltered lab mates is the elevated level of a specific human protein implanted inside their brains — proteins that accumulate in the brains of humans with Alzheimer’s disease.
The monkeys have been injected with beta-amyloid, a molecule that, in high-enough amounts, is toxic to human brain tissue.
Munoz and collaborators are studying the earliest changes in those monkey cerebrums. Normally it takes several decades for Alzheimer’s to unfold in human brains. The researchers don’t have that kind of time. The injections speed things up.
If left alone, eventually the monkeys will start to show signs of Alzheimer’s. They make more mistakes on memory tasks and their reaction time slows.
Alzheimer’s research relies heavily on rodents. Munoz is trying to develop a monkey model of Alzheimer’s, because one of the biggest reasons for the staggering string of flops in the search for an effective treatment for the brain-ravaging disease is the species gap. The rat brain is a long way away from the human brain. Not so much a monkey’s.
Munoz, Canada Research Chair in neuroscience at Queen’s University, has reported his work using brain molecules. Others are implanting monkeys with fragments of human brain tissue extracted from people who died with Alzheimer’s.
Now, however, some are going further, and proposing the creation of human-monkey chimeras — part-human beings with entire portions of the brain, like, say, the hippocampus, entirely human derived.
For Munoz, the idea of biologically humanizing large portions of a monkey’s brain is seriously unnerving. “To be honest, it just really ethically scares me,” he said. He believes in animal research as a fundamental way of understanding how the brain works. However, “For us to start to manipulate life functions in this kind of way without fully knowing how to turn it off, or stop it if something goes awry really scares me.”
However, in a new book on the science and ethics of chimeras, Yale University researchers say it’s time to explore, cautiously, the creation of human-monkey chimeras.
“The search for a better animal model to stimulate human disease has been a ‘holy grail’ of biomedical research for decades,” they wrote in Chimera Research: Ethics and Protocols.
“Realizing the promise of human-monkey chimera research in an ethically and scientifically appropriate manner will require a co-ordinated approach.”
To some, that may seem all fine and good. However, some scientists aren’t waiting for the ethics to be worked out.
In April, Chinese researchers announced they had inserted a human brain gene into monkey embryos, a gene critical for human brain development.The experiment provoked revulsion, and fascination. Ethicists and philosophers condemned it as hugely morally risky, while the scientists behind the work are said to be keen on implanting even more human genes into monkey embryos, including one presumed to play a role in human intelligence.
Boom: Google Crushes Traffic To Mercola.com By 99%
Sir Francis Bacon first said in 1597, “Knowledge is power”, which has since become Google’s unspoken credo. By controlling what gets to your eyes, ears and mind, Google can control you and everyone else.
Mercola.com is the #1 alternative and health-related site in the world, with a global rank of 6,335 of most traffic sites, receiving over 13 million visits per month. 48% of this traffic is from organic searches from engines like Google. However, Mercola has also been banned from Pinterest and shadow-banned by other social media. ⁃ TN Editor
Over the years, the government and business monopolies, including the likes of Big Tech, have formed a global alliance hell-bent on protecting and concentrating member profits. The price for keeping business going as usual is personal liberty and freedom of speech that may impact these fascist government-industrial complexes.
The major industries colluding to take over the government and government agencies include banking, military, agriculture, pharma, media and Big Tech.
The leaders of these industries have organized strategies to buy off politicians through lobbying and to capture regulatory agencies through revolving door hiring strategies and paid-for media influence through advertising dollars.
Big Tech has joined the movement, bringing in a global concentration of wealth to eliminate competition and critical voices — voices that bring awareness to the frightening future as our rights, freedoms and competition erode into a fascist sunset, all disguised as a means to protect you from “misinformation.”
This year, we’ve seen an unprecedented push to implement censorship across all online platforms, making it increasingly difficult to obtain and share crucial information about health topics. If you’ve been having difficulty finding articles from my website in your Google searchers of late, you’re not alone.
Google traffic to Mercola.com has plummeted by about 99% over the past few weeks. The reason? Google’s June 2019 broad core update, which took effect June 3,1 removed most Mercola.com pages from its search results. As reported by Telaposts.com:2
“The June 2019 Google Broad Core Algorithm Update impacted the rankings of websites in Google’s Search Engine Results Pages. Several aspects of the algorithm were changed which caused some sites to gain visibility and others to lose visibility.
Generally speaking, sites negatively impacted will see a drop in rankings for many or all of important keywords or key phrases which they used to rank well for … The June 2019 Google Broad Core Algorithm Update impacted sites across the web, however, I am personally seeing the most impact on News and Health sites.”
Mercola.com targeted in Google’s latest core algorithm update
Now, any time you enter a health-related search word into Google, such as “heart disease” or “Type 2 diabetes,” you will not find Mercola.com articles in the search results. The only way to locate any of my articles at this point is by searching for “Mercola.com heart disease,” or “Mercola.com Type 2 diabetes.”
Even skipping the “.com” will minimize your search results, and oftentimes the only pages you’ll get are blogs, not my full peer-reviewed articles. Negative press by skeptics has also been upgraded, which means if you simply type in my name none of my articles will come but what you will find are a deluge of negative articles voicing critiques against me in your searches. Try entering my name in Yahoo or Bing and you will see completely different results.
As explained by Telapost,3 a core update “is when Google makes several changes to their main (core) algorithm.” In the past, Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.
Traditionally, if you produced unique and high-quality content that matched what people were looking for, you were rewarded by ranking in the top of search results. You would find Mercola.com near the top of nearly any health search results.
So, let’s say one of my articles on diabetes was seventh on the page for your search; if more people clicked on that link than, say, an article listed in third or fifth place, my article would move up in rank. In a nutshell, Google search results were, at least in part, based on popularity.
That’s no longer the case. Instead, Google is now manually lowering the ranking of undesirable content, largely based on Wikipedia’s assessment of the author or site.
Wikipedia’s founder and anonymous editors are well-known to have extreme bias against natural health content and authors. Google also contributes heavily to funding Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is near the top of nearly all searches — despite the anonymous aspect of contributors. Who better to trust than a bunch of unknown, unqualified contributors?
Wikipedia’s co-founder even admits these bad actors have made it a “broken system.”4 Why would Google give such credibility to a platform that even its own founder says is broken and overrun with bad actors?
Another major change was Google’s 2019 quality rater guidelines,5,6 released May 16. What are these guidelines? As explained by Telapost:7
“Google hires ‘quality raters,’ people who visit websites and evaluate their quality. Their feedback doesn’t directly impact your site; it goes to engineers who update the Google algorithm in an effort to display great websites to their users. The guidelines give us great insight as to what Google considers a quality web page.”
One significant change: Google now buries expert views if they’re deemed “harmful” to the public. As explained by The SEM post:8
“There has been a lot of talk about author expertise when it comes to the quality rater guidelines … This section has been changed substantially … [I]f the purpose of the page is harmful, then expertise doesn’t matter. It should be rated Lowest!”
Google used to rank pages based on whether an author could prove their expertise based on how many people visited a page or the number of other reputable sites that linked to that page. No more.
As you may have noticed, we’ve stayed on top of this, even creating a peer review panel of medical and scientific experts that review, edit and approve most articles before they’re published. This is in addition to my own medical expertise as a board-certified physician.
My articles are also fully referenced, most containing dozens of references to studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Alas, none of this now matters, as the very fact that the information I present typically contradicts industry propaganda places me in the lowest possible rating category.
Bait and switch
Different perspectives are essential to a healthy debate of ideas. When our voices are censored humanity loses and fascism wins. Pinterest has banned me, Google has mostly erased my information and many others are experiencing this same censorship. What makes me so dangerous to these industries that they need to censor me from those looking for my information?
Google had the brilliant idea of utilizing crowd sourcing, providing the best answers to your questions by pushing the most frequently selected content to the top of the search results — a truly democratic system to reward people for sharing information, and helping you locate this information by essentially sharing the most popular, highest quality content.
My information was frequently at the top of many health searches, because many people like you found it to be the most valuable. But as Google’s power grew to enormous proportions, the goal of providing this service to you changed. The goal now is to become even more powerful by uniting with other powerful industries and government to force their beliefs on the masses and manipulate the future itself.
Crowd sourcing has become crowd control. Google began by giving you everything you want so it can now take everything you have. Google has changed from looking at users as customers and giving them what they want, to making users custodians of their will — essentially making you a host of a virus to carry out their agenda.
Google has become the ultimate puppet master, infecting people and manipulating them without even knowing it. Their true goal is to be in complete control of all of us, directing our behavior — and should we rebel, they also have partnered with the military to create drones utilizing artificial intelligence to ensure resistance will be defeated.
Public v. Big Pharma: Trust In Vaccine Safety Is Eroding
Blatant propaganda from vaccine manufacturers is wearing thin with the public, especially in more educated areas. In America, 28 percent now question safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccines. However, thanks to Big Pharma’s massive lobby influence in Washington, DC, vaccines are politically mandated whether you like them or not. ⁃ TN Editor
Trust in vaccines – one of the world’s most effective and widely-used medical products – is highest in poorer countries but weaker in wealthier ones where scepticism has allowed outbreaks of diseases such as measles to persist, a global study found on Wednesday.
France has the least confidence of any country in the world in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, with a third believing that vaccines are unsafe, according to the study.
While most parents do choose to vaccinate their children, varying levels of confidence expose vulnerabilities in some countries to potential disease outbreaks, the study’s authors said, recommending that scientists need to ensure people have access to robust information from those they trust.
Public health experts and the World Health Organization (WHO) say vaccines save up to 3 million lives every year worldwide, and decades of research evidence consistently shows they are safe and effective.
But to achieve “herd immunity” to protect whole populations, immunisation coverage rates must generally be above 90% or 95%, and vaccine mistrust can quickly reduce that protection.
“Over the last century, vaccines have made many devastating infectious diseases a distant memory,” said Charlie Weller, head of vaccines at the Wellcome Trust health charity, which co-led the Wellcome Global Monitor study.
“It is reassuring that almost all parents worldwide are vaccinating their children. However, there are pockets of lower confidence in vaccines across the world.”
The spread of measles, including in major outbreaks in the United States, the Philippines and Ukraine, is just one of the health risks linked to lower confidence in vaccines.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, false rumours about polio vaccines being part of a Western plot have in recent years hampered global efforts to wipe out the crippling disease.
The study, led by Wellcome and polling company Gallup, covered 140,000 people from more than 140 countries.
It found 6% of parents worldwide – equivalent to 188 million – say their children are unvaccinated. The highest totals were in China at 9%, Austria at 8% and Japan at 7%.
Seth Berkley, chief executive of the not-for-profit GAVI vaccine alliance, said the report showed a “worrying number of people” questioning vaccine safety. But by focusing on the “vocal minority” who refused to vaccinate, it was easy to forget that the vast majority trusted vaccines and the science that underpinned them.
The fact that the Technocrat elite flatly ignore stern and documented warnings against 5G, indicates that they have some ulterior agenda that they must accomplish regardless of the negative impact on humans. It is the establishment of Technocracy, aka, Scientific Dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor
Are you still under the misconception that unchecked exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation is of no concern? Then I urge you to view the featured documentary, “5G Apocalypse — The Extinction Event” by Sacha Stone.
Please understand that while I am not in agreement with some of Stone’s conspiracy theories on the militarization of these frequencies, the science is beyond solid to justify concern about 5G without throwing in conspiracy allegations. I do believe that, overall, the documentary was well done and nicely packages the nonconspiracy information.
EMF Exposure Has Dramatically Increased Over the Past 100 Years
Indeed, even the earlier, and less intense, generations of wireless technologies have been shown to produce severe harm over time. As explained in my 2017 interview with Martin Pall, Ph.D., professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, the primary danger of EMFs — and what drives the processes of chronic disease — is mitochondrial damagetriggered by peroxynitrites, one of the most damaging types of reactive nitrogen species.
Devices that continuously emit EMF radiation at levels that damage your mitochondria include your cellphone, cellphone towers, Wi-Fi routers and modems, baby monitors and “smart” devices of all kinds, including smart meters and smart appliances.
If you go back in time to the end of World War I, around 1918 or so, and use that timeframe as a baseline of EMF exposure among the general public, you come to the astonishing conclusion that EMF exposure has increased about 1 quintillion times over the past 100 years.
It’s irrational to assume that this radical increase — an increase of 1 billion times — could not have adverse effects on the environment and human health. The reality is that most people are experiencing biological impacts as a result of this exposure, but have no appreciation of the damage it’s causing until it’s too late. Even then, it’s extremely difficult to link EMF exposure to the symptoms or the disease.
Understanding the Mechanisms of Harm
According to Pall’s research,1,2,3,4 low-frequency microwave radiation such as that from your cellphone and wireless router activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) located in the outer membrane of your cells. According to Pall, VGCCs are 7.2 million times more sensitive to microwave radiation than the charged particles inside and outside our cells, which means the safety standards for this exposure are off by a factor of 7.2 million.
Low-frequency microwave radiation opens your VGCCs, thereby allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell, which in turn activates nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide which react nearly instantaneously to form peroxynitrite.5
Peroxynitrite than catalyzes massive oxidative stress by the creation of free radicals that are associated with an increased level of systemic inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, and are thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases.
For an in-depth understanding of peroxynitrites and the harm they inflict, see “Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease”6 — a 140-page paper with 1,500 references written by Dr. Pal Pacher, Joseph Beckman and Dr. Lucas Liaudet. It’s an epic paper and one of the best reviews I’ve ever read, and can be downloaded for free.
One of its most significant hazards of peroxynitrite is that it damages DNA. The European REFLEX study published in 2004 revealed the nonthermal effects of 2G and 3G radiation are actually very similar to the effects of X-rays in terms of the genetic damage they cause.7
Your body has the capacity to repair that damage through a family of 17 different enzymes collectively called poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP). However, while PARP work well, they require NAD+ for fuel and when they run out of NAD+ they stop repairing your DNA, which can lead to premature cell death as over 100 to 150 NAD+ molecules are needed to repair every DNA strand break.
NAD+ is central to maintaining cellular and mitochondrial health, so the fact that PARP consumes NAD+ to counteract EMF damage is an important concern. Can you improve your NAD+ levels? Yes, but it’s a complex topic that really requires a book to carefully explain. As a first step, though, you need to reduce NAD+ consumption, which necessitates limiting your EMF exposure.
Damage Occurs Over Extended Periods of Time
Were the negative effects of EMFs immediately recognizable, matters would be much simpler. Alas, it doesn’t work that way. The damage accrues over time, similar to that from smoking. For years, you can get away without feeling any ill effects until, all of a sudden, you’re beset with debilitating symptoms.
Researchers are in general agreement that there’s a latency period of about 10 years or more before the damage shows up, which places children at greatest risk, since their exposures begin much earlier (nowadays in utero) and persist throughout life unless steps are taken to minimize their daily exposure.
While the controversy over EMF damage has centered around whether or not it can cause cancer, especially brain tumors, this actually isn’t your greatest concern. Since the damage is strongly linked to activation of your VGCCs, it stands to reason that areas where VGCCs are the densest would be most vulnerable to damage.
As it happens, the highest density of VGCCs are found in your nervous system, your brain, the pacemaker in your heart and in male testes. As a result, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric problems, heart and reproductive problems, including but not limited to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility.
Indeed, this is what researchers keep finding, and all of these health problems are far more prevalent and kill more people than brain cancer.
5G Linked to Significant Health Concerns
One of the main problems with 5G is that it relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is primarily between 30 gigahertz (GHz) and 300GHz,8 and are known to penetrate 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin tissue.9,10
Its ability to penetrate tissue and cause a severe burning sensation is exactly why MMW was chosen for use in crowd control weapons (Active Denial Systems) by the U.S. Department of Defense.11
When Health Care Is Run By Technocrats, Don’t Get Sick!
The entire health care industry has been disrupted from top to bottom by Technocrats who believe that their AI programs know better how to treat you than your own doctor. ⁃ TN Editor
People used to know who their doctor was. His name and phone number were on the wall or the refrigerator next to the telephone. He was there for you and could manage most of your problems.
When I was about 13, my mom took me to our pediatrician for belly pain. He was on his way out the door, but he stopped to take care of me. He diagnosed appendicitis based on history and physical examination. He called his favorite surgeon (“Billy,” a Tucson legend), who came from the golf course to meet me in the emergency room. Within hours, my red-hot appendix was in a jar. My parents paid the hospital bill ($150—10 days’ pay for a construction laborer) as I was discharged a few days later.
Today, the patient with abdominal pain could wait for hours to see the ER provider—possibly a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who had never seen a case of acute appendicitis. She’ll probably get a CT scan, after another wait. Eventually, Dr. On-call may take her to the operating room, hopefully before the appendix ruptures. And the bill will be beyond the means of ordinary people.
I used to be able to direct-admit patients from my office and send them with a set of orders to the hospital admitting office. For years, this has been impossible. The hospital is decidedly unfriendly to independent doctors. There’s now a gatekeeper in the emergency room, and most patients are under the control of a hospitalist.
This hospital, still Catholic at least in name, is now owned by a huge national conglomerate. Recently, it thwarted all efforts to keep it from dehydrating a patient to death despite lack of an advance directive or permission from next of kin. The patient’s mother disputed the diagnosis of brain death. The gastroenterologist of her choice was willing and able to place a feeding tube, needed in order to transfer the patient to a skilled nursing facility, but the hospital would not permit it. An outside physician whom the mother had called on was removed from the patient’s room by security, when she was merely praying with the mother. The mother could not get a phone call returned from an attending physician. Who was the doctor? Apparently, the hospital system.
Recently, a physician called me about her mother, who was seemingly a captive in a world-renowned hospital. She was concerned about her mother’s nutritional status and falling oxygen level. She could not speak to the attending physician. “They play musical doctors.”
Largely driven by government policy, the System is increasingly in control. A new level of intrusion is being proposed in California in a bill (SB276) that would outlaw all medical exemptions for vaccines, unless a public health officer approves each one, based on the very narrow list of contraindications accepted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Doctors traditionally swore an oath not to harm patients, and are liable if they do. But government officials are immune from liability, even if they overrule a physician’s judgment that a particular patient faces an unacceptable risk of harm from a vaccine.
If you disagree with your private doctor, you can fire him or simply decline to follow his advice. But what if the government is your doctor?
In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: The mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her 2-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office. The main concern seemed to be that the child was not vaccinated.
Americans need to defend their right to have an independent physician, to choose their physician and type of care, and to give or withhold informed consent to medical treatments. Otherwise, their “doctor” will be a protocol in a system staffed by interchangeable automatons. Treatments will be inaccessible or required, tailored to meet the needs and beliefs of the system.
If the government is the ultimate authority on your “health care,” remember that its tools for checking whether a child has a life-threatening disease such as meningitis include battering rams and assault rifles.
AI 90% Accurate For Predicting Death By Heart Attack?
When insurance companies, HMOs, medicare, etc., implement this technology, patients will see rampant discrimination based on their AI health score; after all, who would sell a life insurance policy to someone who is going to die soon? ⁃ TN Editor
Algorithms similar to those employed by Netflix and Spotify to customise services are now better than human doctors at spotting who will die or have a heart attack.
Machine learning was used to train LogitBoost, which its developers say can predict death or heart attacks with 90 per cent accuracy.
It was programmed to use 85 variables to calculate the risk to the health of the 950 patients that it was fed scans and data from.
Patients complaining of chest pain were subjected to a host of scans and tests before being treated by traditional methods.
Their data was later used to train the algorithm.
It ‘learned’ the risks and, during the six-year follow-up, had a 90 per cent success rate at predicting 24 heart attacks and 49 deaths from any cause.
LogitBoost which was programmed to use 85 variables to calculate risks to a person’s health who was complaining of chest pain. Patients had a coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scan (pictured, stock scan) which gathered 58 of the data points
Services like Netflix and Spotify systems all use algorithms in a similar way to adapt to individual users and offer a more personalised look.
Study author Dr Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco, of the Turku PET Centre, Finland, said these advances go beyond medicine.
He said: ‘These advances are far beyond what has been done in medicine, where we need to be cautious about how we evaluate risk and outcomes.
‘We have the data but we are not using it to its full potential yet.’
Doctors use risk scores to make treatment decisions – but these scores are based on just a ‘handful’ of variables in patients.
Through repetition and adjustment, machines use large amounts of data to identify complex patterns not evident to humans.
Dr Juarez-Orozco said: ‘Humans have a very hard time thinking further than three dimensions or four dimensions.
‘The moment we jump into the fifth dimension we’re lost.
‘Our study shows that very high dimensional patterns are more useful than single dimensional patterns to predict outcomes in individuals and for that we need machine learning.’
Sick: Artificial Intelligence Set To Take Over Healthcare
AI is invading all areas of the health care industry: exam room, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options and exclusions, HMO management, health insurance allowances, etc. The next time you go to a doctor’s office, note how much data they are collecting on you! ⁃ TN Editor
The patient suffers from abdominal pain, along with symptoms in atypical locations, which makes diagnosis tricky. An astute examination reveals the cause: an unusual form of appendicitis. However, credit doesn’t to go to the radiologist. Instead, an imagery machine built with artificial intelligence technology, which can draw on knowledge of tens of millions of similar scans, recognizes the anomaly and makes the diagnosis.
That scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Pressed to reduce costs and boost productivity, medical equipment manufacturers and technology companies are increasingly investing in AI. Several such systems already exist, and growth could ramp up over the next few years, particularly in the field of diagnostic imagery.
“Based on our analysis of AI capabilities, as well as discussions with executives and industry experts, we’re seeing a number of applications across the entire healthcare spectrum, from prevention to diagnosis to follow up,” says Michael Jungling, head of Morgan Stanley Research’s Medical Tech and Services team.
In a recent report, Jungling and his colleagues found that, while hurdles to the development and deployment of MedTech AI lay ahead—including questions around regulations and privacy of patient data—the successful implementation of AI in the field could boost productivity, lower treatment costs and drive growth across the healthcare value chain.
Morgan Stanley estimates that the global market for AI in healthcare could surge from $1.3 billion today to $10 billion by 2024, growing at an annual compound rate of 40%. For investors, large MedTech companies and equipment providers, as well as AI tech providers and emerging startup disruptors could all present opportunities.
AI, Machine Learning and MedTech
AI aims to mimic human cognitive processes, such as learning and reasoning via algorithms and large sets of data. The most popular method is machine learning, in which a model is trained on a data set—such as the intestinal scans of millions of patients—to independently analyze and categorize new datasets. The more complex and larger the volume of data, the more enhanced the cognitive reasoning ability of the model.
Medical AI has great potential, from managing dialysis to optimizing patient-dosing to early disease detection. However, much depends on the power and design of the AI itself. “The timelines for adoption of AI-enabled MedTech will likely be determined by the tangible economic benefits produced by the product and the ease of usability and integration into existing workflows,” Jungling says.
We’re still in the early stages. With relatively modest deployments of AI, such as assistive intelligence, which helps reduce manual processes and simple, but repetitive tasks, such as appointment scheduling, leaving skilled medical staff with more time for specialized and revenue-generating work.
More advanced forms of AI could help medical professionals with their decision-making, by evaluating diagnostic images and creating treatment plans. This form of AI, known as unsupervised machine learning, can assess raw unstructured data and search for patterns. “Such functionality could lead to dramatic improvements in productivity, especially in clinical settings where the supply of highly skilled professionals is limited,” says Jungling.
AI could eventually perform tasks like diagnostics without user input, but such scenarios remain far down the road.
Punish Deniers: Germany Wants To Fine Anti-Vax Parents Up To $2,800
Technocracy has teeth when you don’t agree with its phony science. Big Pharma has driven this vaccine hysteria from day one, turning it into a belief system devoid of facts. In 2015, Al Gore proposed to “punish climate-change deniers”. ⁃ TN Editor
Germany’s Health Minister Jens Spahn wants to fine parents who refuse to vaccinate their children €2,500 ($2,800) in a bid to “eradicate measles,” according to an interview Spahn gave to Bild am Sonntag.
“Anyone going to a kindergarten or school should be vaccinated against measles,” he said, adding “Whoever does not get their child vaccinated, faces up to 2,500 euros in fines.”
A draft law put forward by Spahn would also throw unvaccinated children out of kindergarten, which he says would help protect children too young to receive immunizations.
“Kindergartens have children under 10 months of age, who are too young for vaccinations and are therefore especially threatened,” he said.
According to the Robert Koch Institute of Germany, 93% of children are immunized, however this falls short of the recommended rate of 95% to maintain herd immunity.
Spahn believes he has broad support for his draft law in the ruling coalition of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, to which he belongs, and the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD).
SPD health policy expert Karl Lauterbach spoke of a “very good basis” for a joint discussion. “It will not work without fines,” he told the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper. –Reuters
Spahn’s bill has a different solution for parents of older schoolchildren, which are required by law to receive an elementary school education. So instead of removing the children from school, parents would just pay a fine.
For children with health conditions preventing them from getting vaccinated, such as organ recipients or people suffering from leukemia, parents would be required to provide proof of the medical condition.
By July 2020, all parents who attempt to sign their kids up for kindergartens or schools would be required top provide evidence that their children have been vaccinated.
Vaccinations would also become mandatory for hospital and other healthcare workers under the new law – which is currently being discussed in the Cabinet and is expected to be adopted this year, with a March 2020 enforcement date.